List Person Notes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world. The description adds value by detailing the response structure, note types, and that notes from meetings/emails are included if interaction info is present. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, parameters, returns, note types, example). It is slightly verbose but each section adds necessary information. No wasted words; could be slightly shorter but efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description compensates by providing a full JSON response example, pagination details, and note type semantics. It covers the key aspects needed for correct usage, though error handling or rate limits are missing (not expected for this tool).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds extra context for personId (source), cursor (from previous response), and limit (default and max). It does not mention the responseFormat parameter, but the schema covers it. Overall, meaningful added value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it lists notes for a specific person and details the resource and action. It includes note types and an example. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like affinity_list_company_notes, which slightly reduces clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context on how to use parameters (e.g., personId from other tools) and explains note types, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.